Travel News - A380 Fix Could Take 2 Months

Not a happy time for BAE, but give the teething problems for the 787, Boeing fans have little cause for gloating.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18397398

Please! No more inspection all A380. This should have enough already. It is now safe to fly. There is nothing worry about the wing cracks.

Please! No more inspection all A380. This should have enough already. It is now safe to fly. There is nothing worry about the wing cracks.

:confused::confused:

Um, I am at least one traveler who would prefer they ensure no cracks...

:rolleyes:

:confused::confused:

Um, I am at least one traveler who would prefer they ensure no cracks...

:rolleyes:

Trust me, every airplane you have ever flown on, or will ever fly on, has cracks somewhere on the airplane. The airplanes are designed to have a certain level of damage tolerance, and cracks are included in that evaluation, and they are safe to fly. If you want to fly on a crack free airplane forget about it, they don't exist. Call Amtrak instead.

Please! No more inspection all A380. This should have enough already. It is now safe to fly. There is nothing worry about the wing cracks.

Whew - that's a relief. I'm glad the matter is finally settled. :rolleyes:

Trust me, every airplane you have ever flown on, or will ever fly on, has cracks somewhere on the airplane. The airplanes are designed to have a certain level of damage tolerance, and cracks are included in that evaluation, and they are safe to fly. If you want to fly on a crack free airplane forget about it, they don't exist. Call Amtrak instead.

Except I do not think Amtrak is going to get me across the Pond... ;)

Trust me, every airplane you have ever flown on, or will ever fly on, has cracks somewhere on the airplane. The airplanes are designed to have a certain level of damage tolerance, and cracks are included in that evaluation, and they are safe to fly. If you want to fly on a crack free airplane forget about it, they don't exist. Call Amtrak instead.

No, not really. Not the nearly brand new ones. That's the issue - these planes are getting cracks in critical areas, VERY early in their service life. It's one thing if a plane that has been in service 10-20 years starts showing cracks from a lifetime of pressurizing and depressurizing, taking off and landing, and an inspection regime can insure that these remain minor. It's quite another when a nearly brand new plane (one that holds over 500 souls on board, BTW) starts exhibiting them. It doesn't speak well for what will happen 10+ years into the service life of the plane.

Except I do not think Amtrak is going to get me across the Pond... ;)

How 'bout Costa Cruises?

How about the QE II?

Except I do not think Amtrak is going to get me across the Pond... ;)

How about the QE II?

:)

I'll most likely stick with my DL 764's and AA 772/763/752... ;)

Please! No more inspection all A380. This should have enough already. It is now safe to fly. There is nothing worry about the wing cracks.

I sense bias here. Why would anyone want to assume that a plane is safe, when problems are continuously found, especially in the early stages of its life?

I sense bias here. Why would anyone want to assume that a plane is safe, when problems are continuously found, especially in the early stages of its life?

^
Especially since the smallest thing, can cause the largest problems...

I sense bias here.Got that right. Only question is whose.

Wirelessly posted (Samsung Galaxy S: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.6; en-us; SGH-T959V Build/GINGERBREAD) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

I sense bias here.Got that right. Only question is whose.

Yes.

There are democrats and republicans; vegetarians and omnivores; prolifers and abortion right activists; creationists and evolutionists; and Boeing enthusiasts and Airbus enthusiasts.

Then, there are the rest of us.

Trust me, every airplane you have ever flown on, or will ever fly on, has cracks somewhere on the airplane. The airplanes are designed to have a certain level of damage tolerance, and cracks are included in that evaluation, and they are safe to fly. If you want to fly on a crack free airplane forget about it, they don't exist. Call Amtrak instead.

Thats certainly fair, if my tray table has a crack I don't have a problem over looking it, however personally I would prefer if they fixed the cracks in the brakets that hold the wings on.

Wirelessly posted (Samsung Galaxy S: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.6; en-us; SGH-T959V Build/GINGERBREAD) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

:confused::confused:

Um, I am at least one traveler who would prefer they ensure no cracks...

:rolleyes:

Trust me, every airplane you have ever flown on, or will ever fly on, has cracks somewhere on the airplane. The airplanes are designed to have a certain level of damage tolerance, and cracks are included in that evaluation, and they are safe to fly. If you want to fly on a crack free airplane forget about it, they don't exist. Call Amtrak instead.

In general, severity of the crack depends on its location and propgability. Propagation of a crack is taken into consideration in design. Lmiting crack propagation involves strenghthening, which adds. You can also limit propagation od cracks, by assembling a large section with smaller sections, which introduces integrity issues , which are handled by syrenghthening the joint. Impedance mismatch at the joint stops the crack from propagating.
So yes, cracks do develop and some may not be significant ar first. Not all cracks are equal though.

How about the QE II?

Nope! Sorry!

How 'bout Costa Cruises?

Nope! Sorry!

Maybe next time. :(

No, not really. Not the nearly brand new ones. That's the issue - these planes are getting cracks in critical areas, VERY early in their service life. It's one thing if a plane that has been in service 10-20 years starts showing cracks from a lifetime of pressurizing and depressurizing, taking off and landing, and an inspection regime can insure that these remain minor. It's quite another when a nearly brand new plane (one that holds over 500 souls on board, BTW) starts exhibiting them. It doesn't speak well for what will happen 10+ years into the service life of the plane.

Yes, really.

Having spent the last 25 years working in heavy airframe maintenance, with a major emphasis on aircraft structures, I will accept my opinion over yours. Thanks.

A380 fix could take 2 months ...but won't. From the article:

'However, he added that Airbus expected most customers to do the repairs step by step, as part of regular required maintenance checks.

"In this case, it would only add a few days to the overall procedure," Mr Dubon said.'

This is a non-story with a sensationalist headline that would be more in place on the Daily Mail than on the BBC.

Yes, really.

Having spent the last 25 years working in heavy airframe maintenance, with a major emphasis on aircraft structures, I will accept my opinion over yours. Thanks.

And I will accept mine over yours. You know what they say about opinions - we all have them, just as we all have parts of our anatomy.

I made the specific comment about the cracks being in critical areas. Brand new airplanes do NOT ALL have fatigue cracks where the wings are attached to the fuselage - which is the specific cracks we are referring to here.

Trust me, every airplane you have ever flown on, or will ever fly on, has cracks somewhere on the airplane. The airplanes are designed to have a certain level of damage tolerance, and cracks are included in that evaluation, and they are safe to fly. If you want to fly on a crack free airplane forget about it, they don't exist. Call Amtrak instead.

No, not really. Not the nearly brand new ones. That's the issue - these planes are getting cracks in critical areas, VERY early in their service life. It's one thing if a plane that has been in service 10-20 years starts showing cracks from a lifetime of pressurizing and depressurizing, taking off and landing, and an inspection regime can insure that these remain minor. It's quite another when a nearly brand new plane (one that holds over 500 souls on board, BTW) starts exhibiting them. It doesn't speak well for what will happen 10+ years into the service life of the plane.

Yes, really.

Having spent the last 25 years working in heavy airframe maintenance, with a major emphasis on aircraft structures, I will accept my opinion over yours. Thanks.

And I will accept mine over yours. You know what they say about opinions - we all have them, just as we all have parts of our anatomy.

I made the specific comment about the cracks being in critical areas. Brand new airplanes do NOT ALL have fatigue cracks where the wings are attached to the fuselage - which is the specific cracks we are referring to here.

I will accept planemechanic view for two reasons.

His experience, and
more importantly, he is correct in every respect.

Every structure, even brand new will have defects, volume defects or surface defects, even cracks. The fabrication process itself introduces defects. As I said before cracks are dangerous only if they will propagate. A crack is a way of relieving stress.

Cracks in older aircraft, that DJGMaster1 is talking about are due to fatigue, which are different from "material defects". here defect is used as a technical term, not a layman terms as in when something is defective. ALL materials have defects inherent in them. Every defect is not a cause of concern.
Crystal defects are often used to advantage in Solid State physics in devising solid state devices. Defects are sometimes deliberately introduced in material to manipulate it's structural or electronic properties (these cracks are not introduced deliberately though.

Brand new airplanes do NOT ALL have fatigue cracks where the wings are attached to the fuselage - which is the specific cracks we are referring to here.
The A380 problem is not where the wings are attached to the fuselage but where the internal structure of the wing attaches to it's outer skin.

I will accept planemechanic view for two reasons.

His experience, and
more importantly, he is correct in every respect.

Every structure, even brand new will have defects, volume defects or surface defects, even cracks. The fabrication process itself introduces defects. As I said before cracks are dangerous only if they will propagate. A crack is a way of relieving stress.

Planemecanic and Yaatri are indeed correct. Not only are microcracks an inevitable result of the manufacturing process, they're sometimes deliberately introduced in order to harden the metal. This is taught to engineering and materials science undergraduates. For a technical discussion, see:

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/hutchinson/papers/408.pdf

Planemecanic and Yaatri are indeed correct. Not only are microcracks an inevitable result of the manufacturing process, they're sometimes deliberately introduced in order to harden the metal. This is taught to engineering and materials science undergraduates. For a technical discussion, see:

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/hutchinson/papers/408.pdf

Even a large crack would lead to a disastrous only if it interferes with the function for which the structural part was designed, if it reduces effective length, surface or strength of the part. Something that would reduce wing span, for example, would be disastrous.

Call Amtrak instead.Amtrak has had its share of crack-induced problems t:eek::eek: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/national/16amtrak.html).

My understanding was, that these were fatigue cracks. If in fact they are fatigue cracks, in nearly brand new planes, that is NOT normal in any way shape or form and it is VERY bad news for the future of these planes. If they were merely small material defects that are/were present at the time that the plane was manufactured, and NOT cracks that have worsened over the very short life of the plane thus far, then I would agree that they are not a critical issue. But if they are cracks that have been observed to have measurably worsened on wing support structures over the very short service life of these planes, you would not get me to fly on any A380.

But if they are cracks that have been observed to have measurably worsened on wing support structures over the very short service life of these planes, you would not get me to fly on any A380.

Then you should also avoid travelling on all other aircraft, in cars, on trains, on boats, on bicycles, and all other metal vehicles. You should also avoid entering any building with a metal frame. You might want to avoid sitting on metal furniture too.

:confused::confused:

Um, I am at least one traveler who would prefer they ensure no cracks...

:rolleyes:

Trust me, every airplane you have ever flown on, or will ever fly on, has cracks somewhere on the airplane. The airplanes are designed to have a certain level of damage tolerance, and cracks are included in that evaluation, and they are safe to fly. If you want to fly on a crack free airplane forget about it, they don't exist. Call Amtrak instead.

Amtrak has had its share of crack-induced problems t:eek::eek: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/national/16amtrak.html).

Or walk. If you ned to get there faster, there is always skateboard,. or a bike if you don;t mind some cracks. Think about a horse. ;)

Then you should also avoid travelling on all other aircraft, in cars, on trains, on boats, on bicycles, and all other metal vehicles. You should also avoid entering any building with a metal frame. You might want to avoid sitting on metal furniture too.

I assure you, I will ALWAYS avoid traveling in/on any metal conveyance that develops fatigue cracks in critical areas on a consistent basis less than 5% of the way into it's service life. Particularly if the obvious consequence of failure would be a catastrophic loss of that conveyance and it's passengers.

I assure you, I will ALWAYS avoid traveling in/on any metal conveyance that develops fatigue cracks in critical areas less than 5% of the way into it's service life.

Every vehicle you've ever travelled in throughout your life so far has had fatigue cracks in critical areas 5% of the way into it's service life. Safety is not acheived by preventing cracks; that's impossible. Safety is achieved by designing components to withstand small cracks and still maintain their designed safety margin, by limiting the lifespan of components so that they're discarded before the cracks become large enough to be hazardous, and in the most critical fields such as aviation by rigorous inspection and monitoring regimes.

Every vehicle you've ever travelled in throughout your life so far has had fatigue cracks in critical areas 5% of the way into it's service life.

I call B.S. unless you can document every other aircraft which have experienced significant and numerous fatigue cracks on it's wings within 5% of it's service life. There is a reason this has been revealed, and similar circumstances with other aircraft have not been revealed, is that this situation is NOT the same as every other vehicle that I have been in.

This is clear evidence of a failed airframe design, and one of these planes is going to lose a wing at takeoff or landing within a decade in the absence of major corrective action.

Civility, all :)

Thanks.

cblaisd
Moderator, Travel News

I call B.S. unless you can document every other aircraft which have experienced significant and numerous fatigue cracks on it's wings within 5% of it's service life.

At no point did I say the cracks in every other vehicle you've travelled in were significant, or even numerous. I merely said that cracks existed.

Have a look at:

http://www.keytometals.com/articles/art49.htm

Notice that the first and last graphs have a non-zero crack size for N=0 (i.e. a new component), and that the interpolated curves of the second graph have positive slope from N=0, showing that cracks grow from as soon as the component enters service.

I call B.S. unless you can document every other aircraft which have experienced significant and numerous fatigue cracks on it's wings within 5% of it's service life. There is a reason this has been revealed, and similar circumstances with other aircraft have not been revealed, is that this situation is NOT the same as every other vehicle that I have been in.

This is clear evidence of a failed airframe design, and one of these planes is going to lose a wing at takeoff or landing within a decade in the absence of major corrective action.

What is the basis of your claim? IMO the two reasons it got such publicity was

because this was discovered on the heels of the engine incident with Qantas A380, and
A380, being a new aircraft, still has a lot of interest out of curiosity and bias from Boeing enthusiasts.

Your opinion is very good example of the latter.

Wirelessly posted (Samsung Galaxy S: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.6; en-us; SGH-T959V Build/GINGERBREAD) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

Every sub component of a ceitical component is not critical. Spars,fewer in number thant ribs, not ribs are the main loadbearing structural members. I am sure that their is enough design tolerance that even complete failure of a rib would be serious. To be sure, it has to be repaired. It's possible that stress analysis of some ribs did not capture stress they would be subje ted to. I am not saying it is so, but making a guess. Atmost it's a minor flaw, not critical failure that some people here, without any technical knowledge, and overwhelmed by their fears, are claimimg it to be.

15 of 21 EK A380's have been out of service for at least a month, if not two. This says more about the problem and its solution timingwise than anything else posted here as it applies to 20% of the A380'2 in existence.

What is the basis of your claim? IMO the two reasons it got such publicity was

because this was discovered on the heels of the engine incident with Qantas A380, and
A380, being a new aircraft, still has a lot of interest out of curiosity and bias from Boeing enthusiasts.

Your opinion is very good example of the latter.

I'm not a Boeing enthusiast, so your comment relating to point 2 is incorrect.

The reason this got publicity, is that it is significant. I guarantee you that they will be making major corrections to address this issue. If this were not the case, they could safely ignore it - but they won't be ignoring it - which is why there is already significant corrective action being engineered and planned as we speak - it's because they know damn well it's a real issue.

The reason this got publicity, is that it is significant.

It's significant for Airbus and its shareholders, and of minor significance to the airlines who will lose use of the aircraft for "a few days" according to the article. It is not significant for passengers.

And I will accept mine over yours. You know what they say about opinions - we all have them, just as we all have parts of our anatomy.

Some opinions are formed from experience and education, others are available simply through the chance of anatomy. I know how my opinions developed over the years.



I made the specific comment about the cracks being in critical areas. Brand new airplanes do NOT ALL have fatigue cracks where the wings are attached to the fuselage - which is the specific cracks we are referring to here.

You have no idea what kind of cracks they are.


I assure you, I will ALWAYS avoid traveling in/on any metal conveyance that develops fatigue cracks in critical areas on a consistent basis less than 5% of the way into it's service life.

Enjoy your life of walking. Try not to walk over or under any bridges or through any tunnels.


Particularly if the obvious consequence of failure would be a catastrophic loss of that conveyance and it's passengers.

The only obvious thing in this discussion is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


I call B.S. unless you can document every other aircraft which have experienced significant and numerous fatigue cracks on it's wings within 5% of it's service life. There is a reason this has been revealed, and similar circumstances with other aircraft have not been revealed, is that this situation is NOT the same as every other vehicle that I have been in.

It was revealed because these types of stories sell ink and generate clicks.



This is clear evidence of a failed airframe design, and one of these planes is going to lose a wing at takeoff or landing within a decade in the absence of major corrective action.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!!

LOL this one statement totally blows your own argument out of the water. There is NO CHANCE, none whatsoever, that this minor technical issue will come anywhere close to having a wing fall off. Honestly, I have never read a more stupid statement on this site. And that is saying a lot, as I spend a lot of time in Omni P/R.


The reason this got publicity, is that it is significant. I guarantee you that they will be making major corrections to address this issue. If this were not the case, they could safely ignore it - but they won't be ignoring it - which is why there is already significant corrective action being engineered and planned as we speak - it's because they know damn well it's a real issue.

The reason it is talked about is all about selling ink and clicks. It is not significant, not to safety and not to passengers. Even the airlines will not consider it significant as they will file a warranty claim for any costs incurred in the repair and any downtime.

Don Quixote has nothing on you.

I'm not a Boeing enthusiast, so your comment relating to point 2 is incorrect.
I don't insist that I was right about that. The possibility that's left is less flattering.

The reason this got publicity, is that it is significant. I guarantee you that they will be making major corrections to address this issue. If this were not the case, they could safely ignore it - but they won't be ignoring it - which is why there is already significant corrective action being engineered and planned as we speak - it's because they know damn well it's a real issue.
There is chasm between not just our opinion, but also possibly between our fields of education, expertise and reasoning. I don't know what your reasons for sticking to your refrain, despite having been given very sound technical advice in terms within grasp of those without relevant education or experience. It matters not. If you have any sound technical arguments, other than it's in the news, to support your view, I would be happy to change my mind.
You do know that news stories are not the complete reality and often only remotely connected to reality. Their function is to sell stories, and report a happening. If journalists had the ability to resolve technical issues, we would have had Peter Jennings, Dan Rathers and Tom Brokaw in a committee headed by, maybe, Walter Cronkite, instead of Richard Feynman, Neil Armstrong and Eugene Covert, headed by Bill Rogers.

There is chasm between not just our opinion, but also possibly between our fields of education, expertise and reasoning.

I've always left open the possibility (or even the significant probability) that you are less knowledgeable and qualified than I am in that regard - particularly the reasoning aspect.

The simple fact is, this airframe is extending the knowledge base beyond where it has ever been, in terms of the magnitude and frequency of the loads that have ever been placed on a frequently re-used civilian aircraft. The cavalier nature with which the assumptions derived using much smaller and lighter airframes are being extended into this more extreme application are a significant red flag. I'm reminded of the Columbia disaster, where the ease with which the assumption was made and relied upon that a light piece of insulating foam falling from the vehicle just a short distance would not be able to generate enough force to critically pierce the skin of the vehicle and cause it's destruction. That was considered by the "experts" to be a bedrock solid assumption until it was tragically proven wrong by an actual catastrophic failure.

Incidentally, journalists DO have a highly relevant skill set here: They are the best trained folks on the planet in smelling out BS and overconfidence among the "experts" patronizing the general public whom they are chartered with protecting.

I'm quite sure that the likes of Richard Feynman, were he still alive, would and will be quite capable of identifying the failure mechanism in this case, after a failure occurs. The problem is, neither he nor his surviving peers are on this job now, in a pre-emptive manner - the folks who ARE on the job now are giving us dismissive statements about how there is no risk, which smack of incredible and unjustified over-confidence.

I've always left open the possibility (or even the significant probability) that you are less knowledgeable and qualified than I am in that regard - particularly the reasoning aspect.

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Remember that this is a company that could not even keep two of ots offices updated to the same version of CAD software....

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

which, in it's entirety, is not in the least compelling.

Having lived through the beginnings of the application of Fracture Mechanics to Aircraft as a result of failures of the D6AC Steel Wing Box on the F-111, and the subsequent development of Damage Tolerant Design for Aircraft, I feel quite comfortable that the cracks mentioned are not critical in a meaningful sense. Typical Design Criteria require safe operation with a crack that will grow to critical length in two inspection intervals, just in case it is missed in the first. Since we now can reliably define the minimum inspectable crack, all flight critical parts are assumed to have a flaw oriented in the least favorable direction that is just below the threshold on inspectibility. Rarely do such cracks exist but there are countless internal flaws of lesser size as the result of the Casting, Forging, Machining and/or Installation of the part

Granted, they appear early in the life of the A-380 but the repairs and maintenance steps are entirely consistent with a safe operation. Predicting air loads in flight compared to design loads are a tricky business but major structural loads are quite reliable and design margins sufficient to ensure safe operation with the required inspections.

IMHO, this is a case of the internal loads being somewhat different from design and the result is typical for the introduction of a new aircraft.

I would sooner fly a new A-380 than a 30000 hour anything.

Cheers

Having lived through the beginnings of the application of Fracture Mechanics to Aircraft as a result of failures of the D6AC Steel Wing Box on the F-111, and the subsequent development of Damage Tolerant Design for Aircraft, I feel quite comfortable that the cracks mentioned are not critical in a meaningful sense. Typical Design Criteria require safe operation with a crack that will grow to critical length in two inspection intervals, just in case it is missed in the first. Since we now can reliably define the minimum inspectable crack, all flight critical parts are assumed to have a flaw oriented in the least favorable direction that is just below the threshold on inspectibility. Rarely do such cracks exist but there are countless internal flaws of lesser size as the result of the Casting, Forging, Machining and/or Installation of the part

Granted, they appear early in the life of the A-380 but the repairs and maintenance steps are entirely consistent with a safe operation. Predicting air loads in flight compared to design loads are a tricky business but major structural loads are quite reliable and design margins sufficient to ensure safe operation with the required inspections.

IMHO, this is a case of the internal loads being somewhat different from design and the result is typical for the introduction of a new aircraft.

I would sooner fly a new A-380 than a 30000 hour anything.

Cheers

Since I have FINALLY received a reply from someone with expertise in this arena that was NOT laden with the hubris and a patronizing tone that I considered to be one of the glaring red flags that concern me, let me discuss with you, X3Skier, why this is a concern to me. I have no doubt at all that it is quite possible to insure with a proper inspection and maintenance regimen that these aircraft remain safe in operation, despite the fact that they are showing these sort of cracks much earlier in their operational life than is normal. What I am concerned about is that rigorously doing so is not cost-effective, in the highly cost-sensitive area of commercial aviation, and the attitude that the aforementioned tendency for cracks to develop and propagate has been treated with arrogance and dismissiveness by those who are responsible for maintaining the safety of these birds. That attitude suggests to me that the sort of inspection regimen outlined by X3Skier might not be rigorously hewn to, and far too much reliance upon the supposed redundancy built into the design will actually end up being the last line of safety, and that this may itself not be anywhere near as reliable a line of defense as is assumed, because this largest and heaviest of all commercial airframe designs does expand the working knowledge base of civil aircraft development engineering. The commercial aviation industry has a history of seeking cost-saving shortcuts in maintenance, and it was just such maintenance shortcuts that caused an AA DC-10 to lose an engine and crash on takeoff over O'Hare in the 1970s, and an Alaska MD-9 to have it's rudder jam and bring down the aircraft off of the California Coast in the 1990s. You can certainly use robust maintenance to keep these planes safe in operation, but robust maintenance costs money, and experience has shown that short-cuts will be taken to save money. That is why the design itself needs to be robust against failure to in order for us to really be sure. And the attitudes reflected both in the statements from Airbus and several of the folks who supposedly have expertise here in this forum cavalierly dismissing the issue's severity ought to raise alarms everywhere, if those attitudes reflect the level of diligence being applied to reviewing the safety of these planes and the inspection regimes that they are being subjected to.

Time out.

If folks want to insult each other, take it to PM.

cblaisd
Moderator, Travel News